nworks_setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond what annotations offer (idempotent, non-destructive mutation), it discloses a hard failure mode — the tool fails without NWORKS_CLIENT_SECRET — plus the NWORKS_PRIVATE_KEY_PATH dependency for Service Account flows and the OAuth redirect URI. It warns that an agent should walk users through prerequisites on failure, turning a simple config call into a predictable, recoverable operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every section earns its place — prerequisites, tool role, workflow routing, and failure handling are scannable via headers, block bullets, and numbered lists. The one blemish is the OAuth redirect URI appearing as an orphaned final line after the error-handling note, which slightly undercuts the otherwise clean structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool (4 flat params, 1 required, no output schema, no enums, no nested objects), the description is over-complete: it covers prerequisites, environment dependencies, post-conditions, and failure recovery. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the absence of return-value docs is immaterial for a credential-storage tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already has 100% coverage with Korean descriptions, setting a baseline of 3, and the prose adds value on top: it reveals clientId is the required anchor, explains Client Secret is deliberately absent as a param for security, and surfaces pairwise semantics like serviceAccount+botId for message features. That relational context isn't in the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Immediately states its purpose: 'NAVER WORKS API 인증 정보를 설정합니다' (configures NAVER WORKS API authentication), then the '이 tool의 역할' section explicitly clarifies it stores clientId plus optional serviceAccount, botId, domainId. This setup-verb-plus-resource purpose distinguishes it cleanly from the 35+ operation-oriented siblings (send, list, create, etc.) without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '설정 후 다음 단계' section explicitly routes the agent conditionally: calendar/mail/drive/task/board features require calling nworks_login_user next, while message/member features require Service Account auth. It lacks an explicit 'do NOT use this when' exclusion, but the workflow context and the failure-remediation note ('실패 시 사용자에게...안내하세요') provide strong, practical invocation guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.